On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:54 -0500, David Golden wrote: > Could we also consider moving away from singletons that are hard-wired > to Test::Builder? By that I mean make Test::Builder a 'factory' that > gives either a default, plain vanilla Test::Builder object or else a > specific subclass? E.g., > > use Test::Builder 'Test::Builder::Subclass'; #sets up the singleton as > a subclass > use Test::More 'no_plan'; # uses the subclass object
That's one way to do it. I'll think more about this. > Also, in thinking through the reorg of Test::Builder, it would be great > if the notion of "success" or "failure" could be isolated from any > particular form of output. That would mean that someone could use > Test::Builder::TAP (for TAP style output) or Test::Builder::HTML for > custom output purposes. (As opposed to the current approach of using > Test::Builder to speak TAP to Test::Harness to gather results to either > print or do other things with.) Hm, this is less convincing to me. Still, you can do something different with Test::Builder::TestOutput if you want. -- c
